I'd like to inform you that in wake of the new "Titans" series being announced for 2018, I've went ahead and created a wiki for this series. I just have one issue.
The url "titans.wikia.com" is used as a redirect for this wiki. Can you assist in deleting it as a redirect so I can use it for Titans Wiki? Considering that the titans are just a small part of the overarching DC universe, I think the url is more fitting at Titans wiki rather than sitting as a redirect that nobody uses for this wiki.
I've read the thread on Tupka's wall aready.
I will thank you not to spam all of the administrators' walls with your concerns when one administrator's answer doesn't satisfy you.
We are all aware of each other's walls, and we are more or less unified in our stance.
Suffice it to say that as an overarching DC related wiki covering other media etc - and generally, doing it well - there is no benefit to us in giving up these redirects - that is why we have them. While we currently receive little benefit from this particular one, we would, once the show comes out.
Splinter wikis like the one you have started are detrimental to this wiki's growth, and we can't support them with that in mind.
A few years ago, Wikia came to us and begged us to convert our character page templates to Lua. Instead of listening to our warnings that we don't use the same templates as the Marvel database, they just ported the Marvel version to our wiki, and broke a bunch of things. We did our best to fix them, but after the initial rollout, they provided no further support, and stuff just stayed broken.
A few years later, they came up with portable infoboxes, which admittedly made the site look better on mobile. However, the conversion broke several basic and important functions of the infoboxes, and when - as before - the guy who was converting our templates just ghosted us without any further help or instruction, an even longer list of broken things has been waiting to be resolved.
And then it occurred to us that we could resolve literally all of our issues by returning most of the templates to their former state. (And simultaneously regain the ability to add or remove things to templates as needs arise). The only downside is looking ugly on mobile, and marginally slower load times.
You can put "N/A". We used to have a thing that also categorized them as Black and White issues, and removed the red-link, but since the move to portable infoboxes, that coding's broke, and we don't know how to fix it.
I just read your post on publication date vs. cover date. I've been adding the "Day" field to a lot of New 52 titles lately and, occasionally, have had to fix dates up with the PubMonth and PubYear fields.
I think (believe, hope?) I've been doing this correctly and sincerely hope that my changes weren't the trigger for your message.
I may have explained pubmonth and pubyear before, but those should only be used if the issue was delayed for some reason, and ended up published in a month more or less than 2 months from the publication date. (And due to some weird coding problem, you HAVE to use pubyear if you use pubmonth, even if it came out in the same year).
That's just for your information. I haven't spotted you doing anything wrong (but I also haven't been checking up on you!). If you have something you want me to check on, just send me a link, and I'll have a look :)
The forum post was just to take care of some concerns that new users hadn't caught on.
Thanks for the reply. I've noticed that many of the 1st wave of New 52 publications don't have the day field, thereby keeping them from being categorized into a specific publication date. I went through Aquaman Volume 7 issues and have started on the Catwoman Vol 4 issues.
Yes, I didn't create the weekly categorization/day field until 2014 or so, I think, and then I went back to 2000 and started working my way forward with it, so that's why more recent issues are missing the field.
I managed to get a hold of Charles Soule, and he finally answered regarding that entity in the final issue of his Swamp Thing run. He calls it the White, and when I asked what it is, he called it "Art, really. Creativity." Should we take this as the official word?
Alright. The only other example of The White I've seen is in Earth 2, but given the authors that created that during "World's End" also inexplicably changed the name of The Grey there to The Black, it's pretty hard to take that as definitive.
The initial run of Earth 2 was written by James Robinson, who had some experience writing about that aspect of the DCU in his Starman series. He created the idea that Solomon Grundy would be an agent of the Grey (which was introduced in a Swamp Thing annual in the 80s, and was fleshed out a few years later by Doug Wheeler in the Rise of Matango/Quest for the Elementals stories.) Anyhoo, I suspect that after Snyder came out with The Rot as a thing, the younger (and probably less experienced) writers on the world's end series just adopted The Black instead. (I'm not sure anyone regards World's End as canon right now anyway).
Sometime back I asked you for guidelines on writing synopses. After reading through a lot of comic pages, I decided to start smaller. I've created several pages for locations and minor characters and would like to ask a favor.
Could you look at some (not all) of the following pages and give me a critique on the writing?
The first sentence should describe what it is. I suggest switching the line about its location with the second line about its residents. They matter more than where it is.
Your bit about "the smiths, better known as the Kent Family" assumes that a reader would know about whatever mysterious plot twist has caused Clark Kent to actually be Clark Smith - I only have vague knowledge about it. While it should be written in-universe, you should try to make it possible for unfamiliar readers to understand that this information was revealed to be the case after the fact - or don't mention it at all, see:
Does a page for a farm that is called Kent Farm because the people who live there call themselves the Kents need to be named something it was never called because their real name was a secret?
Again, tell us what it is, before you tell us where it is.
Feels well-written and descriptive, but also a bit terse, if you know what I mean.
Use past tense for character histories. If they're alive, you can still say "Jimmy Crew is a guy..." but from that point on, anything that he did in a comic should be written as if he DID them, and is not DOING them.
Phrases like "among other actions" and "among others" are unnecessary teases. You have a platform to write verbose descriptions of a character's actions on this wiki. If the information isn't important enough to include, don't mention it at all, rather than alluding to it with vague phrases. If it is important, go into as much detail as necessary to get across the character's role and development.
Small peeve: "Team Green Arrow" should probably just be "Team Arrow". That's been the accepted term since at least 2007, based on the page history.
If these are coming off as aggressively critical rather than constructively critical, I don't intend them to. Overall, they're well-written descriptions, and welcome too.
Minor characters and locations tend not to have a lot of info to write about anyway. Major characters would likely get a bit more complicated.
Thanks for the detailed response. As for being aggressively critical, I don't consider your comments to be that. I've suffered through code reviews where people criticize you for using a "while loop" instead of a "for loop", among other things.
This is valuable information for me, certainly better than "Your writing is horrible and you're an idiot!" :-)
This is a new style of writing for me which is why I started with minor characters and locations. The only way I'll get better is if I get kind souls to critique it. I want to begin adding synopses but also wanted to start with small steps.
I'll go back and make changes based on the comments I've received. I'm just going to wait a few days until I do.